1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is generally directed to computing systems. More particularly, the present invention is directed to unifying the computational components within a computing system.
2. Background
The desire to use a graphics processing unit (GPU) for general computation has become much more pronounced recently due to the GPU's exemplary performance per unit power and/or cost. The computational capabilities for GPUs, generally, have grown at a rate exceeding that of the corresponding central processing unit (CPU) platforms. This growth, coupled with the explosion of the mobile computing market (e.g., notebooks, mobile smart phones, tablets, etc.) and its necessary supporting server/enterprise systems, has been used to provide a specified quality of desired user experience. Consequently, the combined use of CPUs and GPUs for executing workloads with data parallel content is becoming a volume technology.
However, GPUs have traditionally operated in a constrained programming environment, available primarily for the acceleration of graphics. These constraints arose from the fact that GPUs did not have as rich a programming ecosystem as CPUs. Their use, therefore, has been mostly limited to two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) graphics and a few leading edge multimedia applications, which are already accustomed to dealing with graphics and video application programming interfaces (APIs).
With the advent of multi-vendor supported OpenCL® and DirectCompute®, standard APIs and supporting tools, the limitations of the GPUs in traditional applications has been extended beyond traditional graphics. Although OpenCL and DirectCompute are a promising start, there are many hurdles remaining to creating an environment and ecosystem that allows the combination of a CPU and a GPU to be used as fluidly as the CPU for most programming tasks.
Existing computing systems often include multiple processing devices. For example, some computing systems include both a CPU and a GPU on separate chips (e.g., the CPU might be located on a motherboard and the GPU might be located on a graphics card) or in a single chip package. Both of these arrangements, however, still include significant challenges associated with (i) separate memory systems, (ii) efficient scheduling, (iii) providing quality of service (QoS) guarantees between processes, (iv) programming model, and (v) compiling to multiple target instruction set architectures (ISAs)—all while minimizing power consumption.
For example, the discrete chip arrangement forces system and software architects to utilize chip to chip interfaces for each processor to access memory. While these external interfaces (e.g., chip to chip) negatively affect memory latency and power consumption for cooperating heterogeneous processors, the separate memory systems (i.e., separate address spaces) and driver managed shared memory create overhead that becomes unacceptable for fine grain offload.
Both the discrete and single chip arrangements can limit the types of commands that can be sent to the GPU for execution. By way of example, computational commands (e.g., physics or artificial intelligence commands) often cannot be sent to the GPU for execution. This limitation exists because the CPU may relatively quickly require the results of the operations performed by these computational commands. However, because of the high overhead of dispatching work to the GPU in current systems and the fact that these commands may have to wait in line for other previously-issued commands to be executed first, the latency incurred by sending computational commands to the GPU is often unacceptable.
An additional difficulty faced in using GPUs for computational offloading lies in the software tools available to developers to interface with the GPU and provide work. Many of the existing software tools are designed with the GPO's graphics capabilities in mind, and therefore lack the capability to easily provide non-graphics work to a GPU.